 | Energy from Wind: A Discussion of the EROI Research | The Oil Drum: Net Energy | The Energy Return of Nuclear Power (EROI on the Web-Part 4) |  |
56 comments on Unconventional Oil: Tar Sands and Shale Oil - EROI on the Web, Part 3 of 6
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
| Show without comments | PDF version
56 comments on Unconventional Oil: Tar Sands and Shale Oil - EROI on the Web, Part 3 of 6
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
| Show without comments | PDF version
User login
Contact
- theoildrumeroi at gmail dot com
Personnel
Archives
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
GAIA Host Collective
The Canadian government publishes data that seems to allow a primitive EROI calculation for the entire energy sector.
i.e. They estimate the total energy production in petajoules and in addition estimate the energy consumed by energy producers. There are reports for 2001 to 2006. The 2001 report contains a data point for 1990.
However, for the years we have, despite the fact that the tar sands have come on strong in recent years, EROI (by this measure) is not falling.In fact, it was 12 in 1990 and 13 in 2006.Thoughts, anybody?
Source:
Most recent data:
http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/071220/d071220a.htm
Older data:
http://www.statcan.ca/bsolc/english/bsolc?catno=57-003-XWE
Well, my initial general thought is that as energy surplus declines, we will borrow what we can to maintain it from the poor (rising inequality) and the environment (higher externalities). Certainly neither 'straight' EROI, nor conventional economics accounts for environmental externalities, though the market is starting to in a small (misguided) way with carbon credits.
The other thing off the top of my head is that the canadian numbers have to be quality adjusted - if the main energy input is now electricity, but it used to be something of lower quality, then quality adjusted EROI (in the primitive form you illustrate) could be declining.
Also, its possible that what your chart might show is the 'cannabilization' of the in situ resource that is 'free'. The recent rise in EROI since 2004 seems to coincide with the scaling of tar sands. If a good % of the tar sands themselves are used as energy to process different tar sands to an end product, I doubt the NEB is counting that as an energy input.
Also - remember that energy surplus is EROI x Scale - so if total energy is declining, even with higher EROI you have smaller societal energy surplus (not sure if thats the case here)
Finally, the above chart doesn't tell us much about fixed vs marginal energy investments. Its possible in some of those missing data points that very large energy expenditures were made in energy infrastructure, and that we now have higher EROI because we are predominantly using built infrastructure as opposed to energy intensive new structures, to harvest the oil/NG, etc. We don't know though (but I suppose could back into that...)
The in situ resource here isn't very usable in unprocessed form! Or even semi-processed form. But I don't know the process well, so can't rule it out.
In this case total energy is definitely rising:
Starting in 2005, Statistics Canada began breaking down producer consumption by energy type. However, we don't yet have the full report for 2006, so there are no other numbers to compare with that breakdown. (For 2005, nat gas is definitely a big input).
I'm not expecting this measure of EROI to rise much in the near term. However, I do think that the rise at the end of this series could have something to do with a response by producers to high energy prices. i.e. Energy producers are becoming more energy conscious!
Over time, regardless of what is happening to the quality of the underlying resource and capital and equipment costs, it's likely they learn ways of improving their means of processing the sands. That could be expected to partially offset other pressures on EROI.
One thing for sure, I'll be watching these reports carefully as the years go by.
They don't yet include data on most forms of alternative energy production. Hopefully that gets added soon.
Did you arrive at these results through dividing the "Production" figure by "Producer Consumption" numbers?
If so, then I wonder if the technote 5 on table 11 (http://www.statcan.ca/english/freepub/57-003-XIE/2005000/technote5.htm) would apply:
So, from the table labeled "Energy Supply and Demand" one would have to add to "Producer Consumption" some share from the "Industrial" entry (as "Industrial" would include mining per the notes.)
In other words, "Producer Consumption" doesn't include strictly mining consumption (or likely transportion consumption) either.
No?
Yup.
Regarding technote 5 for table 11....
Remember that not all crude produced is classed as energy. If it's used in plastics production, lubricants etc, it's a product of mining and energy used to produce it is counted as such, not as consumption by an energy producer.
So, what happens, for instance, when hydrogen from nat gas is used to upgrade heavy oil which is then used for non-energy applications? I think this section deals with those cases as well as the case where the oil ends up being used as energy.
That's why it can be counted as either producer consumption or attributed to mining (not both).
But, I'm no expert.
Unfortunately the definitions as given aren't provided with enough detail or examples to clarify what is really meant by "producer consumption" or "industrial", etc.
This is the problem of accrual. E.g., if a company has to transport personnel to a job site, does the energy expended to accomplish this get put into "producer consumption" or "transportation"?
If such details are not tractable, perhaps it is better to accept that EROEI analyses are best thought of as qualitative indicators rather than the energy equivalent of accounting.